O/T Democracy

[BigLadonOS]

I think you are taking this a bit hard, Biggie.

Everybody knew why BoJo prorogued Parliament, which is why he wouldn’t submit a sworn affidavit in support of his public claim that it was a matter of routine. It’s also why the Supreme Court decision to declare the ‘routine’ prorogation is now being derided on here as being a pro-Remain decision.

Are you for real? So everyone knew why Boris did what he did but where is your proof? Other than an assumption what proof do you have?

The law deals in proof not hearsay or at least it did before today's events.

[KerrAvon]

Are you for real? So everyone knew why Boris did what he did but where is your proof? Other than an assumption what proof do you have?

The law deals in proof not hearsay or at least it did before today's events.

I'm for real, Biggie.

The decision today wasn't about whether BoJo told porkies (even if we all know that he did). It was about whether a government can suspend Parliament without a good reason.

Now it may be that BoJo had a good reason but he declined to provide any evidence concerning his reasoning preferring instead to have his lawyers argue that the court simply had no jurisdiction in the matter. Even though his reasoning was not ultimately in issue, his failure to provide any evidence on the point is telling and one from which court could draw the obvious inference.

[BigLadonOS]

I'm for real, Biggie.

The decision today wasn't about whether BoJo told porkies (even if we all know that he did). It was about whether a government can suspend Parliament without a good reason.

Now it may be that BoJo had a good reason but he declined to provide any evidence concerning his reasoning preferring instead to have his lawyers argue that the court simply had no jurisdiction in the matter. Even though his reasoning was not ultimately in issue, his failure to provide any evidence on the point is telling and one from which court could draw the obvious inference.

My god man you are a total and utter nutter. The case was brought to the courts on the premise that Boris lied to the queen which is what they have given a verdict of guilty on.

I hope this is what all you antidemocratic people wanted because you have now given the law full power over any political decision that will be made from now on.

Good luck to Corbyn if he thinks he is going to get that £10 an hour living wage to pass Parliament and the law. Even if parliament do pass that law it could now be taken to the courts by the rich business men and women who will find a reason to not abide by it.

Your vote will never ever count for anything again in your lifetime or even your children or grandchildren. You and any remoaners who have backed this result or who are harpy about it will pay the price big time so well done muppets.

[KerrAvon]

My god man you are a total and utter nutter. The case was brought to the courts on the premise that Boris lied to the queen which is what they have given a verdict of guilty on.

I hope this is what all you antidemocratic people wanted because you have now given the law full power over any political decision that will be made from now on.

Good luck to Corbyn if he thinks he is going to get that £10 an hour living wage to pass Parliament and the law. Even if parliament do pass that law it could now be taken to the courts by the rich business men and women who will find a reason to not abide by it.

Your vote will never ever count for anything again in your lifetime or even your children or grandchildren. You and any remoaners who have backed this result or who are harpy about it will pay the price big time so well done muppets.

I know that you won't accept it, Biggie and I am not going to engage you in a WanChai style circular argument, but you are plain, vanilla wrong on this.

The government declined to provide any evidence to the court upon the reason for proroguation. The court had to decide if it had jurisdiction in the matter and then whether the government had acted reasonably and rationally. In the absence of any evidence from the government, the court was entitled to draw its own conclusions.

[BigLadonOS]

I know that you won't accept it, Biggie and I am not going to engage you in a WanChai style circular argument, but you are plain, vanilla wrong on this.

The government declined to provide any evidence to the court upon the reason for proroguation. The court had to decide if it had jurisdiction in the matter and then whether the government had acted reasonably and rationally. In the absence of any evidence from the government, the court was entitled to draw its own conclusions.

The separation of powers does not give the court the right to question the reason a political decision was taken and should never ever have had the chance to do so. Political decisions do not belong in the hands of none political none elected people. These judges practice law not politics and are in no way attuned to political matters. That is the truth of it no matter what you say or think.

[Shark27]

I know that you won't accept it, Biggie and I am not going to engage you in a WanChai style circular argument, but you are plain, vanilla wrong on this.

The government declined to provide any evidence to the court upon the reason for proroguation. The court had to decide if it had jurisdiction in the matter and then whether the government had acted reasonably and rationally. In the absence of any evidence from the government, the court was entitled to draw its own conclusions.

You could have told us this before it happened then or at least had an educated guess. Could have made yourself look good?

[sawmiller]

what rancour we have here